What Does Constitute A Society?

Have you ever wondered what is, or what does constitute, a "society" of people?

This question actually has two very distinctly separate answers. One concerns human history up until 1964; the other post 1964 (the significance of 1964 will be made clear further on), We'll take a look at pre 1964 first.

NOTE: This following discussion will only involve human 'groups' that live within a sovereign state, or a 'settled people.' Nomadic peoples, for the sake of brevity, will not be included here. A "society" can also include a Nation, Tribe, or a large Clan.

Again, we'll begin here with people's living arrangement prior to 1964.

In order to define a 'society' let's first recognize discernible characteristics that were part of all societies (nations, tribes, clans) prior to 1964. There were three:: 1) societies were all created by males; 2) societies had a defined geographic area; 3) societies' social strata were consistent racially, linguistically and religiously (for the sake of consistency here, I'll refer to the 'group' that coalesced under these characteristic as a "male group"; also, linguistic difference or religions difference, individually, even a 'way of life,' can create a 'distinctness' and be used as a basis for separation from society's dominate male group e.g Mormons; Jews; Amish separated form America's white Christian dominate male group). So one male group would claim a geographic area ...under the characteristic mentioned above, then create a social stratification system i.e. a social hierarchy. The social stratification system became "the society" - or the male social hierarchy. In other words, human history did not demonstrate (that I know of) one recorded example of two (or more) different racial groups coming together in mutual harmony to create a single society; no recorded example of two (or more) linguistic groups or religious groups - prior to 1964 - amalgamating within one society/ nation/ tribe and in a state of political equality ... and living in mutual harmony. Societies prior to 1964...always consisted of ONE dominate male group, within a defined geographic area, and ONLY members of that male group were allowed into the 'groups' social hierarchy. So two purposes become clear in the making of, and the continuation of, a human society prior to 1964: to claim and retain the geographic area for the Dominant Male Group, & to provide a status environment for that ONE male group.1

FEMALES:: As for the females' historic role within a society, their two main responsibilities were to procreate for 'their' male group...and to raise the children.

NOTE: Prior to 1964, there is no recorded example in human history where females within a societal structure were allowed into the male's social hierarchy. There is also no recorded example in human history prior to 1964 where males outside of the dominant male group were allowed entry into the dominant male group's social hierarchy. 1

Historical Group Recognition (HGR): In order to build societies, which, again, prior to 1964, consisted of males racially, linguistically and religiously similar, males from the dominant male group used "group" recognition, or HGR. The existence of all racial and ethnic groups on the planet today is due to this 'recognition' characteristic.

Let's repeat the simple process by which human societies had formed throughout history - that is up until 1964:

-- Males create societies - NOT females. Female's sole responsibility is to perpetuate the society in which the male group creates.

--- Males create societies to provide status environments within their geographically claimed area, and the status envirnment(s) were for members of their own male group i.e. male members who meet the group's distinctness racially, linguistically and religiously. Status environments are needed to create a ranking system for the males ( NOT the females)...so males know where they fit within their 'own' male group.

--The male group (males racially, linguistically and religiously similar) after they claim their geographic area and establish a social strata ... now have a society/ nation/ tribe. A group designation is given to the male group e.g. Japanese, Russians, Pakistani, Navajo, Apache, etc.

--Of course, once the society is formed, now the male group that created the society ... must protect it (.i.e. its land and stratification system) from encroachment from other male groups. They did this with HGR (Historical Group Recognition). And what happens when a male group tolerates encroachment into their established society? LINK

THEN CAME 1964...

The American Experiment: Redefining A Society with Compulsory Inclusionism

At the beginning of 1964 American society numerically had two racially significant populations, those of European descent (87% of the population) and those of African descent (11% of the population). Throughout America's history and up until the late 1960s, these two racial groups had mainly lived legally separate ( observing a color line mandate). In other words, Americans (white Christians) were not violating any existing Constitutional laws by living separately, or having separate working environments for black and whites ( i.e. the social stratification structure of American society was completely consistent with that of all human societies in recored history). Putting it another way, the recognized Americans at that time, who were the white Christians, and whose male group was the creator of all the political and economic arenas in America, as well as the "American" culture, were not morally, legally or historically wronging the black race where and when they preferred to live by a color line. The Negro race in America from 1865 to 1964 was supposed to live separate ...so as to achieve self-reliance as a people - a requirement ALL distinct people (racial and ethnic groups) throughout human history were expected to achieve.

From 1964 to 1968, the United States government (it was actually just a few hundred men of Euro descent) had decided, with altruism and forward-thinking as the underlying spoken ambition, it was going to change the human dynamics of its society in a way no society had ever been subjected to before. First came compulsory integration into White males' occupational titles/ working environments (Civil Rights Act 1964); then White males' political environments (Voting Rights Act 1965); and finally White males' residential communities (Fair Housing Act 1968). Putting it another way, Historical Group Recognition (HGR) was now made illegal in America. So not only were the white Christian males FORCED - by federal laws - to surrender their economic and political environments to another distinct people ( a first in human history) but they were also forced to surrender their national identity as the 'Americans" i,e, the former Americans are now referred to as simply "white people."

Incidentally, and, again, quite incredibly, there was NO QUID PRO QUO of any kind regarding the three compulsory integration laws.

Clearly, with these new federal laws, American society was now going to be reshaped, reconstituted and reorganized, compelled to integrate ( with minorities & later females) and forced to assimilate like no society had ever experienced in history. These compulsory integration laws were also a very clear message - from White liberals - to the Negro race that they (Negroes) were now going to be completely relieved of their human requirement to become a self-reliant people (Booker T. Washington's pursuit).

NOTE:: Beginning in the late 1960s, many American females, using the wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, began their 'movement,' also demanding compulsory integration rights into America's dominant male group (White Christian males).

Regardless of what one's belief system is regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its companion laws of 65, and 68', it is a demonstrable fact that these compulsory integration laws produced, for good or bad, a very profound change in the structure of American society ; rendering it less a society by historic standards and more of, if not entirely, a "system" of forced cooperation.

Also of note: Curiously, only countries of Western Civilization (specifically English speaking) have adopted and enforced compulsory integration laws -- civil rights laws.

And one final thought: No one should conclude that this new system of compulsory integration (i.e. Compulsory Inclusionism) has passed the test of time.


1. It is important to note that there certainly were societies prior to 1964 that had a different religious group(s) or a different linguistic group(s), and even a few with a different racial group(s) within its geographic area. However, what is indisputable, and a point of supreme importance here, is that there was always one Dominant Male Group (DMG) that constituted the society's power structure; and it (the Dominant Male Group, or the DMG) was always based on the three similar characteristics of race, language and religion .

As for women acquiring occupational titles within a male group's social hierarchy prior to 1964, there certainly were a few examples in human history. But females as a group within a society, human history does not record one example - prior to 1964 - where they were allowed into the males' social strata.

More by this Author

Comments 3 comments

ElSeductor profile image

ElSeductor 4 years ago

What is the point of your hubs?

You wrote: "..were not violating any historic precedent by living separately from those of African descent; nor were they violating any existing Constitutional laws by living separately."

The "Dominant Male Group" plucked Black people from Africa and brought them to the American Society. Did you expect the Blacks to not integrate into the American Society and remain slaves forever?

You wrote: "the United States government in a mere four years had succeeded in doing what no government had ever done, indeed, never conceived of doing, in human history with regard to its human population."

Suggesting that this was altruistic is ridiculous. Integration was self serving. Had integration not been implemented, you better believe that dominant males of the time would have lost their heads.


S Leretseh profile image

S Leretseh 4 years ago Author

"The "Dominant Male Group" plucked Black people from Africa and brought them to the American Society."

A few members among the many did, unfortunately, do this. However, less than 1% of all white Christian people in America owned slaves in 1860. Almost 10% of all free blacks in the South owned slaves. Blacks were also ALL the notorious slave breeders in America. Go figure...

"Did you expect the Blacks to not integrate into the American Society and remain slaves forever?"

Non Sequitur ...

"you better believe that dominant males of the time would have lost their heads"


Mohd. Ibrahim Khaleel 3 years ago

Islam never recognized segregation of people on the basis of color, creed or birth. Please note.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article